Posted on 06/02/2018 6:34:56 AM PDT by Salvation
Question: A Protestant told me recently that Peter can’t be the rock since Jesus is described as the rock and cornerstone of the Church, and he showed me a couple of places where Jesus is described as the cornerstone and even a stumbling block to unbelievers. Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C.
Answer: Of course Jesus, Peter and others who are called “rock” or stone are not literally chunks of stone. What we have in such attestations is the application of a metaphor. Scripture, like any lengthy document uses many metaphors, similes and analogies. Such things can be true in different ways.
In the Scriptures we see that Peter is called “the rock” by Jesus (Mt 16:18). Jesus is also called a stone (1 Pt 2:6). And the apostles and prophets are called foundation stones and Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20). The Book of Revelation describes the Twelve Apostles as foundation stones (Rev 21:14). So there are a number of “stone” references that need not be mutually exclusive.
Jesus is the deepest and surest foundation of the Church. That the Apostles, prophets and, in a special way, Peter are rock is understood in a subordinate sense. That is, they are rock and foundation for the Church on account of the grace and support of Jesus.
|
|
The Protestant to whom you refer fails to see the context and metaphorical sense of the texts and terms. He also fails to see that Jesus, while not abandoning his Church as her true head and foundation, does assign Peter a unique status to be the visible and identifiable rock on which the Church will be built. Peter (and his successors) is the rock, but he does not stand in midair. He is supported by Christ and his grace and affirmed by him as the visible rock and head of the Church. The Protestant approach is to see the Church as invisible. But Jesus did not establish an invisible Church. It is visible and with a visible rock and head: Peter and his successors.
I know...I was surprised at the NASB rendering. Explains why we need to have the Greek at our disposal.
You’re saying the Holy Spirit messed things up when He was moving Paul to write his letters.
There are some things you like and things you don`t like which is proven by the way you twist it all up there are some cold hard facts which you are afraid to consider so you ignore the scripture.
No, i did not say the holy spirit messed anything up, making things up again are you?
Read the New Testament. You will not find Paul or any of the Apostles referring to themselves as Father ______.
Run along and play somewhere. As I said....you’re out of your league.
Run along and play somewhere. As I said....you’re out of your league.
You may be right, believing what Jesus said is pretty unpopular and i don`t know how to deny everything he said like you do.
Also, in the Vulgate it says:
nam si decem milia pedagogorum habeatis in Christo sed non multos patres nam in Christo Iesu per evangelium ego vos genui
Which roughly translated says:
for if you have tens of thousands of teachers in Christ but not many fathers for in Christ Jesus through the gospel I have begotten you
It is interesting to note that we have an English Bible in spite of the RCC, who wanted to keep it only in Latin and initially killed those who would print it in the native languages.
It is interesting to note that we have an English Bible in spite of the RCC, who wanted to keep it only in Latin and initially killed those who would print it in the native languages.
The NIV
Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
So it appears to me that Paul could possibly have been the first father in the Church that later became the Catholic Church.
I don`t know but if they are reading what Paul says and ignoring what Jesus said i can see where they have their reason.
The simple point is that in the Greek, in the Vulgate, and in the KJV, it plainly says “I have begotten you”, not “I became your father.”
But in either rendering, Paul is talking about an event, not an honorific.
“I have begotten you”, not “I became your father.”
Again, in either rendering, Paul is not talking about an honorific title.
Again, in either rendering, Paul is not talking about an honorific title.
The Protestants claim Jesus did not say Simon would be called a rock but there are also over a billion Catholics and no doubt millions of Protestants who think of him as the rock or call him the rock.
So regardless of the reason Paul said it that is what we have.
By that logic, 1 billion moslems believing that Mohammed is the prophet must be true as well.
The Protestants claim Jesus did not say Simon would be called a rock but there are also over a billion Catholics and no doubt millions of Protestants who think of him as the rock or call him the rock.
I think this is a gross mischaracterization of what other have said. Peter is "a Rock," not "THE Rock," which is Christ, the Son of the Living God.
“The passage contains the feminine word, ‘petra.’”
Cephas means rock, i think Jesus understood what he was saying, and changing the word after the fact does not change the meaning.
I think this is a gross mischaracterization of what other have said. Peter is “a Rock,” not “THE Rock,”
The fact that it was written in Greek does not change what Jesus had already said.
“By that logic, 1 billion moslems believing that Mohammed is the prophet must be true as well.”
It is true that they believe it,Yes.
Jesus said you shall be called a rock and he was.
My argument is not if Simon barjona was the rock or not but that he was called a rock, even by Paul, Cephas means rock.
JESUS IS NOT A LIAR..
I don’t have a problem with Simon being call Petros/Cephas/Peter, because that is plain in scripture. The thing I object to is he is not The Rock of the church. That is Christ, and Christ alone.
The Eastern Orthodox do not see the Bishop of Rome, who (supposedly) sits in the seat of Peter, as having primacy over the church. That is purely a Roman catholic distinctive.
That is purely a Roman catholic distinctive.
Mathew 20:25, 26 , 27
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;
27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
The reason Jesus called Simon Cephas is because he knew that Simon would take the lead, and Simon did take the lead but that did not give him authority over the others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.